Cultural Relativism?

Question

In my ethics class we talked a lot about Cultural Relativism. To me it seems insane to think there is a set objective set of moral values. I think something is moral because the society you live in has deemed it moral. So along those lines, in societies where they think killing is ok, then killing is morally right. From the perspective of OUR society it is wrong...But in relation to theirs it is right. There is no set standard we can judge both our views by and say whose is "right." This always seemed common sense to me even before this class. My question, however, is do most Philosophers feel the same as me (morality is subjective) or do they feel morality is objective? Thanks.

marisha -

I would say not. I think these are simply values that are needed for societies to function properly. If we didnt think it was "wrong" to kill, everyone would be dead and we wouldnt have a society in which you and I could discuss this topic. Besides, thousands of years ago almost all of the world thought slavery in one way or another was ok...That doesnt mean its a universal truth of some kind...It just means everyone thought slavery was right.

n3 -

Not really worth replying to...But think for a second and realize not everyone is christian.

XM

You obviously dont have the same grasp on relativism as me.

Yes its true I cannot pass jusdgments of another society RELATIVE TO AN OBJECTIVE SCALE.

Thats right, I cant force my believe on others.

Exactly. None of those things (hitler, 9/11) was wrong by comparing to an objective standard. They are, however, wrong in my society. (And because I live in this society, wrong to me as well)

2+2=5 is a false mathematical statement. First of all, I was speaking of ETHICS, nothing more, nothing less. Second of all, mathematical statements can be PROVEN to be true using the axioms from which mathematics was derived.

Again, we are speaking of CULTURE. Not an individuals choices on what is right or wrong. If the society you live in deems shooting up the school as not moral, you cannot morally shoot up the school. However, if you live in a society that is all for school shootings, then doing so would be morally acceptable behavior.

End.

Answer 1

First, you must be clear about what type of "relativism" you are referring to. Cultural relativism is NOT the same as moral relativism.

An anthropologist adopts (this is part-and-parcel of being a "professional") an attitude of cultural relativism -- that is, he posits that no one culture is superior to another culture. He or she adopts this as an attitude (so that he doesn't visit an alien culture-- say a culture of cannibals -- and follows up with a monograph detailing all the horrendous things he's witnessed..or writing a diatribe against culture X. .At least, this is true of today's anthropologists -- there were some who were definitely Politically Incorrect by today's standards...in fact, I suppose, it could be said that some utterly despised the cultures they were "examining.")

For philosophers the entire notion of "moral relativism" has been deemed "vague and confused," when it's not written off entirely as incoherent. The logical conundrum consists in doing the following -- a person claims "NO value system is superior to any other" -- yet, in the next breath the person declares "Moral relativism must be adopted by everyone!" (ie, it's superior or has "special status" relegating to "inferior" all other systems). Can't have it both ways.

The authors of the Critical Thinking Handbook (page 400) write: "Popular relativists seem to think that value is relative to the person or group making the judgment: Different person, possibly different value. And they conclude from this that value judgments are neither true nor false, but are only opinions."

I suppose you've heard the phrase: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?" That is an example of moral relativism. It is unsustainable when examined.

It's not true that there is an insurmountable barrier or distinction between "objective" and "subject" realities. As the authors of the Handbook state: "Popular relativists ignore the fact that people escape subjectivity by using facts, purposes, concepts and respect for others' views when reasoning about values." (The authors go on to provide an entire section on how to analyse, evaluate, and critique moral arguments. Briefly, moral arguments can be assessed in terms of "ends" vs "means;" "personal" vs "universal;" etc., all beyond the scope of the current question.)

Answer 2

If you really want to believe in cultural relativism then you cannot pass judgement on other cultures. True?

If what for you is true isn't necessarily true for everyone else then you can be right about something but you can't force that belief on others. Correct?

Therefore you cannot say what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews were wrong. You cannot say what Pol Pot did was wrong. You can't say what happen on 9/11 was wrong.

Also you cannot disagree with me when I say that 2+2=5. Also, if I get a question wrong on my math tests that teacher is wrong in doing so because the answers she marked wrong on my test are what is right to me.

Cultural relativism exists is some small degree but too much empasis is placed on it in schools and not enough is placed of abolute truth.

My personal belief that I should shoot up my school so that I may be holy means that you should not stop me from doing it because what's right for you isn't what's right for me.

Answer 3

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/jEiJu

Cultural relativism, like moral relativism, pervades today's world. As long as we don't "hurt" anyone, anything goes. Absolute truth has been discarded along with God. We live in a society of pluralism and tolerance. We reject the idea of universal right and wrong. With a diminishing list of objective standards, our legislative system is having a harder time defining the laws, and our court system is having a harder time interpreting them. In just a few decades, our entertainment industry has pushed the "acceptance" of lewdness and indecency to levels we never imagined. Our children are losing their moral compass and lashing out in violence like never before. Our schools teach that we are an accident of evolution. Our institutions teach that we must accept all types of lifestyles or be deemed "intolerant," or worse, "hate mongers." Relativism encourages us to accept pornography in the media and fornication in our colleges and universities. Many things that were deemed a "sin" only a few years ago are now either accepted or promoted in our culture. According to the relativists, all points of view are true except for those that teach absolutes -- absolute truth, absolute right or wrong, or an absolute God.

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Cultural Relativism?
In my ethics class we talked a lot about Cultural Relativism. To me it seems insane to think there is a set objective set of moral values. I think something is moral because the society you live in has deemed it moral. So along those lines, in societies where they think killing is ok, then killing...

Answer 5

As you can see, there are different ways of thinking about this one. There is clearly no OBVIOUS universal ethical standard, or we wouldn't be even having this discussion. Part of the problem you're going to have with any ethics discussion, too, is that words like 'good' and 'right' have an implied subject. Good FOR what?

Having said that, I tend to agree with others that there is at least one universal ethic - that of survival. While it might serve an individual's goals to die in the pursuit of some ethical goal, if a society or all of mankind should die in a similar way it only serves others.

Think about it. If there exists a society which does NOT rate the long-term survival of the human species as their first priority, eventually there will arise a crisis where they choose something else INSTEAD of survival. And they will be destroyed.

It is BECAUSE so few societies rate survival of mankind important that we all worry about nuclear annihilation, global pollution, and any of a dozen other things that stand a chance of wiping the lot of us out. Nor will adjustment to that ethic be easy, because I suspect a lot of other cherished ideas and superstitions will have to be laid by the wayside to put long-term survival first.

So in that sense, either there is one ultimate ethic which must be inviolable, or else ethics as a whole is meaningless. Much of ethics may be subjective or relative... but all of it? No.

Answer 6

I believe that "most" philosophers are split in ethics. The issue at hand is that Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism are moral theories based more on feeling than reason. The ethical theories that fall under Universalism or Objectivism tend to utilize the human faculty of reason and rationale. Depending on what kind of person/philosopher you are, you will decide to make decisions, not just moral ones based on either how you feel about the situation or decision, or you will make a decision based on reason. So to answer your question, I think philosophers are split. But I do not think CR and Subjectivism are as common sensically slam dunk as you think...

Answer 7

No, most philosophers have pretty much bashed cultural relativism because there are other laws that exist irregardless of where you are. Example? The law of gravity. While the gravity is different here than on the moon, gravity still exists throughout the universe. Another you ask? The laws of thermodynamics. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That is true throught the universe. The point is, that, whether we want to adhere to them or not, there are "absolutes" in the universe that do affect our existence. Everyone can argue about what is right and what is wrong, but have you ever pondered the deeper question....the desire to know and define what "right" is and what "wrong" is, to establish a MORAL code and to enforce the moral law, that is something no other animal does.

Answer 8

They may be relative but the Western civilization culture's morals must be superior because they have been by far the most successful culture. Now if the headhunters cannibalistic culture had been better we would all be headhunters now probably. The whole world is now adapting Western dress , morals and political systems of democracy. The Europeans have colonized practically the whole world from Africa to Australia to S and N America etc. We seem to be the most fit culturally speaking compared to other cultures, so ours must be superior even though I dont know if I agree with that totally.

Answer 9

Where do Human rights come from?

Now there are some who say we'd only have the rights society lets us have. So I guess if you live in North Korea you are deprived of them. But in countries like the US, natural rights are considered something you will always have.

Now looking at Moral Relativism, is it ever right for your property, life, etc.. to be taken or abused just because society says its okay? Of course not. There is a standard of behavior we must live by that goes beyond the social one. Murder and theft have been illegal and outlawed for so long because societies have reaffirmed it as so. This is why nations in the west urge end to violence in places like Darfur. This is why we need to urge a end to such atrocities.

Answer 10

Cultural relativism is how behavior can be explained by assessing the culture within the community. My guess lol